Liberals often urge as an objection to Ultramontane vigor the
fact that the Church herself enters into amicable relations with
Liberal governments and personages, or, what comes to the same
thing, with Liberalism itself.

If the Church can take such a position, surely Ultramontanes,
who are looked upon as the vanguard of the Church, may find an
example in this, her policy, worthy of imitation?

We reply. We are to consider these (128) relations as official
amities, and nothing more. They by no means suppose any
particular affection for the persons who are their object, much
less approbation of their actions, and infinitely less any
adhesion to their doctrines or the approval of them.

In the first place we must remember that there are two
ministrations in the Church of God; one which we may call
apostolic, relative to the propagation of the faith and the
salvation of souls; the other, which we may very properly term
diplomatic, having for its subject human relations with the
powers of the world.

The first is the most noble; properly speaking it is the
principal and essential ministration. The second is inferior and
subordinate to the first, of which it is only the auxiliary. In
the first the Church is intolerant and uncompromising; in this
she goes straight to her end, and breaks rather than bends:
frangi non flecti. Witness in this respect the persecutions she
has suffered. When it is a question of divine rights and divine
duties, neither attenuation nor compromise is possible. In the
second ministration the Church is condescending, benevolent and
full of patience. She discusses, she solicits, she negotiates;
she praises that she may soften the hard; she is silent sometimes
that she may better (129) succeed, seems to retreat that she may
better advance and soon attain a better vantage. In this order of
relations her motto might be: flecti non frangi. When it is a
question of mere human relations, she comports herself with a
certain flexibility and admits the usage of special resources.

In this domain, everything that is not declared bad and
prohibited by the law common to the ordinary relations of men is
lawful and proper. More explicitly; the Church deems that she may
properly make use of all the resources of an honest diplomacy.

Who would dare reproach her for accrediting ambassadors to bad
and even infidel governments, and on the other hand in accepting
ambassadors from them; for honoring their noble and distinguished
families by her courtesies and enhancing their public festivities
by the presence of her legates?

"But why," interrupt the Liberals, "should you
manifest such detestation for Liberalism and so vehemently combat
Liberal governments, when the Pope thus negotiates with them,
recognizes them, and even confers distinctions on them?" We
can best answer this foolish thrust by a comparison . You, we
will suppose, are the father of a family. You have five or six
daughters, whom you have brought up in the most scrupulous and
rigorous virtue. Opposite to your house, or perhaps next door, we
will imagine, dwell some neighbors of blemished reputations. You
command your daughters, without cessation, under no circumstances
to have aught to do with these people. They obey you strictly.
But suppose now that some matter should arise relative to both
you and your neighbor's interest in common, such as the paving of
a street, the laying of a water main, etc. This obliges you to
consult and advise with your neighbors as to this common
interest. In your intercourse with them you treat them with the
usual courtesies of society, and seek to conclude the business on
hand in a harmonious way. Would your daughters, therefore, be
justified in declaring that, as you, their father, had entered
into certain relations with these neighbors and extended to them
the usual courtesies of society, so should they be allowed to
associate with them; as long as you their father had thus entered
into relation with them, so they had a right to conclude that
they were people of good morals?

The Church is the home of good people (or who ought to be and
desire to be); but she is surrounded by governments more or (131)
less perverted or even entirely perverted. She says to her
children: "Detest the maxims of these governments; combat
these maxims; their doctrine is error; their laws are
iniquitous." At the same time, in questions, when her own
and sometimes their interests are involved, she finds herself
under the necessity of treating with the heads or the
representatives of these governments, and in fact she does treat
with them, accepts their compliments, and employs in their regard
the formula of the polished diplomacy in usage in all countries,
negotiates with them in relation to matters of common interest,
seeking to make the best of the situation in the midst of such
neighbors. In thus acting does she do anything wrong? By no
means. Is it not ridiculous then for a Catholic, availing himself
of this example, to hold it up as a sanction of doctrines, which
the Church has never ceased to condemn, and as the approbation of
a line of conduct, which she has ever combated?

Does the Church sanction the Koran, when she enters into
negotiations, power to power, with the sectaries of the Koran?
Does she approve of polygamy because she receives the presents
and embassies of the Grand Turk? Well, it is in this way that the
Church approves of Liberalism, when she (132) decorates its kings
or its ministers, when she sends her benedictions, simple
formulae of Christian courtesy which the Pope extends even to
Protestants. It is a sophism to pretend that the Church
authorizes by such acts what she has always condemned by other
acts. Her diplomatic can never frustrate her apostolic
ministration, and it is in this latter that we must seek the
seeming contradictions of her diplomatic career.